[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George H. W. Bush (1992, Book I)]
[February 21, 1992]
[Pages 286-290]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks to the American Legislative Exchange Council

February 21, 1992
    Thank you for the welcome. May I thank Fred Noye and Sam Brunelli 
and all the others assembled here. This has become an annual ritual, one 
that I look forward to very, very much. I don't know whether Jack Kemp 
is here--he was going to be; been here. And Sam spoke. I have great 
confidence in both of them. But I really wanted just to come over and 
say a few words, express my greetings to all of you.
    Thinking of ALEC, I wanted to talk here about how you get things 
done, the key to good government. And Americans, I think, sensible ones, 
know that the Federal Government simply cannot do everything and 
shouldn't even try. It could get the job

[[Page 287]]

done and then let everybody else do his or her job. At ALEC, you get 
things done. And I want to help you do what you do best, and that is to 
lead and to innovate.
    So, we want to take $14.7 billion, maybe Sam talked to you about 
this, in Federal program funds and turn them over to the States as a 
block grant. And that way people who run the programs can do what works 
rather than following some distant bureaucrat's notion of what works. We 
tried it last year, didn't get it; we're trying it again this year. I 
hope we can make some headway, even though it is an election year.
    Another one, welfare reform. Our system too often promotes 
dependency and not independence. And so we've asked the departments to 
go back and the agencies to go back and make it easier to obtain the 
waivers that are necessary to institute welfare reform. Workfare's a 
good example. Learnfare, like they're doing in Wisconsin, is a good 
example. And the States are innovating. It is their responsibility, and 
we are trying to give them the support through waivers. So I would 
suggest where you see hangups on it, let us know because we are trying 
to see that there is not bureaucratic opposition to moving forward with 
these flexible approaches that require waivers. These reforms create, 
actually, the most important ingredients for success, and that is 
personal power and personal responsibility.
    We're getting more money to States for the important things, 
programs that work. We've increased spending on education, on Head 
Start, conservation fund grants, and I'm sure Sam mentioned this, 
transportation. And don't think for a minute that we measure progress 
simply in terms of dollars; we do not. We measure it by results, and we 
fund these programs because they work. Head Start helps us achieve our 
six educational goals. Kids starting school ready to learn--this year we 
funded it so that every 4-year-old will have that opportunity.
    So, we're moving forward on what we feel works. Jack's program, that 
I'm supporting him on and have been trying to get through Congress, the 
HOPE program, H-O-P-E, enabling low-income families to own homes. And I 
like HOPE for a simple reason: It is a sensible program, and it makes 
good sense. And when you own a home, I think we all understand, you own 
a piece of the community. And you have a dignity and a self-respect that 
simply cannot be equaled in any other way. You all look at the world 
differently. You have an interest in improving your assets, and you have 
an interest in safer, cleaner, better communities. And let me simply 
say, HOPE works.
    This pork barrel spending--there was an amazing article on that in 
the paper today--doesn't, and we've asked Congress to eliminate, totally 
eliminate, 246 programs. All of them have noble titles. All of them have 
wonderful titles, and all of them have sponsors in Congress. But they 
are not needed. And we are in tough financial times, and so we're trying 
to get rid of 246 of them and put the money where it gets results.
    And at the same time, we've asked Congress to take a few steps to 
bolster confidence in Government and to strengthen the economy. We need 
real tools to cut spending. And I want that line-item veto. We're going 
to keep on pressing for it. In signing statements, I have said that 
we'll refute, we just are not going to accept some of the language, and 
so far that's gone on through in the bills that I have signed. But we 
want a line-item veto, and again, I'm going to take the case to the 
people for this in the fall.
    I want a balanced budget amendment. We couldn't do it overnight, 
obviously. But if we got it, it would discipline not just the executive 
branch, but it would discipline the United States Congress which 
appropriates every dime and tells us how to spend every single dime. 
We've got to cut the deficit without raising taxes, and if that takes an 
amendment, let's get the amendment and get the job done.
    Secondly, I want Congress to stop passing these unfunded mandates. 
If there is one thing we hear the most about from States, from Governors 
or State reps or State senators, it is unfunded mandates. And a Federal 
mandate is a promise that's made up there on Capitol Hill and then paid 
for back on Main Street. But the subcommittee chairmen up there have not 
changed their thinking at all. One program after another

[[Page 288]]

is mandated, and thus a big burden placed on the States. And so we say 
to Congress: Stop passing the buck back. If you pass a mandate, pay for 
it, and don't go and raise taxes.
    Third, I want to put a lid on nuisance lawsuits. You know, the law 
should foster progress, not hinder it. When fathers stop coaching Little 
League because they fear lawsuits, there's something wrong. And we've 
gone way too far. When doctors stop delivering babies because they fear 
lawsuits, something's wrong. And when people stop volunteering to help 
other people because they fear ambulance-chasing lawyers, something is 
wrong. And the madness must stop.
    We have legislation up there in the Congress sitting dormant. And 
here's one where we can take the case to the American people in the 
fall. It transcends party lines. It transcends ideology, liberal, 
conservative. It just does not make sense to have so many of these 
lawsuits settled in such an outrageous fashion. So, we are going to take 
that case clearly and loudly to the American people this fall. The 
madness has got to stop.
    We've drafted a model act to help people engage in voluntary service 
without fear of unfair suits. And I hope your States will use this model 
to draft your own tort reform laws. Alabama, as Perry was telling me and 
reminding me because I've known it, put together such a statute, got it 
passed in less than 4 months. Perry Hooper--where is he, he was here 
right a minute ago--right over here, sponsored the legislation, and 
we're very proud of what he's done. It's a model for other States, and 
it makes me redouble our efforts here to get something done on the 
Federal level.
    I've asked Congress to act upon our ``Access to Justice Act'' which 
encourages people to seek alternatives to court. And it used to be a 
joke; you'd get upset and someone would say, ``Don't make a Federal case 
out of it.'' Now the joke's on us, and we've got to turn that around. 
People still turn small squabbles into lawsuits, and they sit in 
courtrooms listening to lawyers bicker about problems that should have 
been solved some way, over a cup of coffee at home maybe.
    The ``Access to Justice Act,'' and I urge you to take a look at it, 
provides alternatives and puts an end to this madness. And I'd like to 
challenge you to pass your own ``access to justice'' reforms. Lead the 
way. And then I think that will send a powerful message to the United 
States Congress.
    The Council on Competitiveness here, under the able leadership of 
Vice President Dan Quayle, has prepared two model State statutes which 
are outlined for you in the packets that I am told you were given today. 
Take it home, and think it over, and craft your own antilitigation laws. 
Wouldn't it be nice to create a law that results in fewer lawsuits?
    And I don't like to have this many influential people gathered here 
without soliciting your support, for you to ask Congress to do its part 
to help the economy. We've got a good plan. It is good. There's a lot of 
special interests don't like parts of it, but it is a good, sound, 
stimulative plan. It will protect today's jobs, and it will create new 
jobs for tomorrow.
    Congressional leadership also has a plan. And it will protect 
today's congressional seats, and it'll promise action tomorrow. So, we 
are locked in a real fight up there. We're short on numbers, but we've 
got the facts and we've got the merits on our side.
    So I've given Congress a long-term plan, longer--I'd like to see it 
pass this year--to build the foundations for the next American century, 
an America that is healthy and well-educated and confident and free and 
better in research and technology, all of these things.
    The health care plan, incidentally, that I came out with fits 
perfectly with yours. It improves our health care system, which provides 
the highest quality care on Earth. We've got health care problems, but 
one of them is not the quality of American health care. It is the best 
in the entire world.
    And so, our program doesn't knock that aside to pass some mandated 
nationalized program. It gives everybody access to health insurance. And 
it lets people choose where to get treatment, which doctors they like. 
And when people make these choices, they feel more comfortable; they get 
treatments sooner, much sooner than under these 
nationalized programs. And our plan

[[Page 289]]

provides something better than socialized medicine's false promises: 
health care itself. So I urge you to take a look at this one. I think 
philosophically it will be right in tune with what we all believe.
    My administration also understands that we've got to meet the 
challenges that lie over the horizon, the challenges of the 21st 
century. And our America 2000 education strategy encourages revolution, 
a new generation, literally, a new generation of American schools. It 
stresses excellence. It stresses accountability. It stresses 
involvement. It stresses choice. And choice closes the gap between the 
kitchen table and the teacher's desk. It gets families involved in 
education. And it gives parents power over their children's schooling. 
And I urge you to take a look at that program again. A lot of it does 
not have to be enacted in Federal legislation. A lot of it can be done 
simply through innovation at the State and certainly at the local level.
    The family really, when you look at the problems, is the key to our 
future. The mayors of cities in the National League of Cities, their 
executive board came in to see me. I mentioned this in the State of the 
Union. And all of them--Mayor Bradley of Los Angeles, a great big city; 
the Republican Mayor of a small town in North Carolina of about 2,000; 
and in between, Mayor of Plano, Texas, and cities of that size--all came 
together, and they said, ``The biggest worry we've got that clearly 
works against these problems in the cities is the decline of the 
American family.''
    And family is a key to our future. It's been said that the best 
Department of Health and Human Services is the family. And it is. And 
it's also been said that what happens in your house--this was a quote by 
the famous Silver Fox that lives with me over in the White House, 
Barbara Bush--it's also been said that what happens in your house--and 
this is the way she put it, and I think it's very relevant--is more 
important than what happens in the White House.
    And it's true. It is very, very true. And so I've asked this 
Commission that these mayors suggest we set up, this Commission on Urban 
Families, to find family policies that work, to ferret out Federal 
legislation that works against the family, to suggest Federal 
legislation that might bring the family together and might make an 
errant parent more responsible. Our laws shouldn't encourage a single-
parent household or fail to punish men who abandon their children and 
the mothers. They should promote whole and healthy families.
    That's what the purpose of that Commission is. And then when we get 
its suggestions, I really want to share them with ALEC and other groups 
because I believe you'll find some real merit in what this Commission 
will come up with. I'm confident I know the direction they're going to 
take.
    So, these are in the longer term proposal. But I've also submitted a 
short-term economic plan. And that provides two essentials for families 
in our Nation, jobs and security. And this plan--I've challenged the 
Congress to move on it by March 20--stimulates investment. It energizes 
the real estate industry, and it cuts taxes that inhibit growth. And 
I've asked Congress, as I say, to pass it by March 20th, 4 weeks from 
today.
    Now, very candidly, we're caught up in a political season here. And 
I have not been happy with what's come out of the Ways and Means 
Committee so far. The Democratic leaders have come up with a sorry plan. 
They want higher taxes, and they want higher spending. And they hope to 
buy off the people with a tiny temporary tax cut. If you belong to an 
average family of four, their scheme will give you about a quarter a 
day. And even the tooth fairy pays more than that in there. [Laughter]
    And we Americans, we want a large and expanding economy that offers 
new options and challenges and that holds the promise of job security 
and employment opportunity. And frankly, I think the country has a 
reason to join me in being tired of the games being played. For 3 
straight years we've tried to get a capital gains tax reduction. It 
would stimulate jobs. And all the people that control Congress do is 
say, ``Well, it's a tax sop for the rich. This is a break for the 
rich.'' It isn't. When the Steiger amendment was passed in '78, new 
businesses were created; new jobs were created. And it would have the 
same effect

[[Page 290]]

now.
    And we're competing in this world. And Japan has a capital gains 
tax, an effective tax of about one percent; Germany, I think it's zero. 
And we're asked to compete then with two hands tied behind our back in 
this important world competitive market which we cannot turn our back 
on.
    And so, we're going to keep fighting for these things that stimulate 
this economy and get it moving. It is my conviction that if our first-
time homebuyer credit is passed, and if our incentive through rapid 
depreciation is passed, and if our capital gains cut is passed--these 
are three of our seven points in this short-time program--it would send 
a signal of confidence to this economy. You don't have to see the effect 
of it when tax time rolls around. It will give a stimulation of 
confidence to the small-business guy that might just say, ``I'm going to 
take a chance. I'm going to open a business here.''
    And so, we really need help now trying to encourage the Congress to 
pass this program by March 20th. And out of the budget agreement of 
1990, which had things in there I didn't like, there was one good thing 
in it. There were a couple of things that were pretty good. But there 
was one good thing in it: For the first time in history, we put caps, 
meaningful caps, on discretionary Federal spending. The critics forget 
that. Those caps are in place. They can work. Federal spending's up 
because you have S&L's, you've had bank problems, enormous problems 
outside of this. You've had the entitlements going up; they're outside 
of the caps. But the caps are the only protection the taxpayer has 
against the growth of discretionary Federal spending.
    And now, as the election approaches, you hear a lot of talk by the 
Democrats, ``We want to change it. We want to change the caps, knock 
down the walls.'' Please help me keep those caps in place. I will veto 
any attempt to change it, but we're going to need help to keep those 
caps in place, to protect the taxpayer as best we can until we can get 
some Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to share the values 
that you certainly epitomize and advocate.
    So we're in a fight here. And I am going to take this one all the 
way. After March 20th they say, ``Well, what are you going to do?'' I 
say, ``Well, I don't know,'' because I'm not going to give up until 
March 20th on trying to get this sensible, short-term, stimulative 
program through the Congress. But I guarantee you, if we fail, the 
message is going to be loud and clear. And we'll put it in very clear 
focus so the voters next fall are going to be able to make their 
determination as to what should have been done and those who stood 
against it.
    So again, I would solicit your help in the time that remains between 
now and March 20. Help us on the short-term program. Advocate the things 
you agree with us on on the longer term program, all the things I've 
mentioned on education and research and family credits. These things are 
very, very helpful for the future.
    So, thank you for what you're doing. I'm glad you came by. I wish we 
had a little more time, but I'm heading off to the South. You guess why.
    Thank you all very much.

                    Note: The President spoke at 11:42 a.m. in Room 450 
                        of the Old Executive Office Building. In his 
                        remarks, he referred to Fred Noye, chairman, and 
                        Sam Brunelli, executive director of the council, 
                        and Perry Hooper, a council member from Alabama.